Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) tweeted support, but otherwise progressives who might have assumed to have been supportive were absent, leaving members of the GOP as the sole defenders of civil liberties. The White House was equally silent.

…there were seven Republicans Senators that decided it was a better idea to eat dinner with the odious Obama instead of assisting Rand Paul. Worse, two Republicans actually denounced Paul’s efforts. All these Senators need to be gotten rid of.

Rand Paul used the debate about the nomination of John Brennan as his “in” to begin his filibuster. Obama offered the nomination of Brennan as his next CIA chief and Paul used his turn to speak about Brennan as a launching pad to force Obama and the CIA to agree not to kill Americans with domestic drone strikes without trail, warrant, or arrest.

The excitement from rank and file GOPers hungry for some kind of victory was tremendous. Unfortunately, two foolish GOP Senators actually denounced Rand Paul for his successful and exciting effort.

The bobbsey twins, John McCain (Ariz) and his lapdog Lindsay Graham (So. Car.) actually attacked Paul for his filibuster. John McLame, for instance, called Paul “ridiculous.”

As Rusty Weiss notes, “What’s actually entering the ‘realm of the ridiculous’ Mr. McCain, is that you have been entrenched in the old school GOP so long that you are completely unable to identify a staunch defense of the very documents that you and the President of the United States have sworn to uphold … if it bit you in the ass.”

Rand Paul did a great service last night in calling attention to this issue. Judging from the reactions from both the left and the right, he was right on point.

Paul has the makings of a great leader as long as he doesn’t become too much like his loony dad.

5 Responses to “Standing With Rand Paul And…….Van Jones?”

Nan G

Code Pink has taken a consistent stand against the use of armed drones anywhere.
They also supported Rand Paul’s demand for clarification yesterday.
Strange bedfellow rearrangements.
But Obama has always been willing to throw his own supporters under the bus.
After all, where would they cast their vote, if not for more Dems, when they enter the polling booth?

MOS 8541

If the idiot throws his political supports under the bus, why is the “killer rice” and the “mexican cartel’s buddy- holder” still doing in office? Because the gop is too ignorant and lazy to do anything. When is the senate and house going to vote themselves a pay raise. According to the ried and polosie(cocktail waitress), both are under paid for what they do. Didn’t polosie make $5 million last year in her china sweat shop? How quickly this group of people forget…

Kevin

Hasn’t the executive branch *always* had the legal right to execute American citizens, on US soil, without due process, e.g. SWAT team giving the “go” to their sniper to execute a US citizen holding someone else hostage? I’d really like to see the issue here stated more precisely. The rhetoric I’m hearing is, “Members of the executive branch should never be able to legally kill American citizens on U.S. soil without due process.” But per the example above, and hundreds like it, that can’t be the actual problem.

In that light, what is the meat of the complaint? Is it more along the lines of, “Unlike other members of the Executive Branch of the government, President Obama has not been as forthcoming about the parameters under which he could legally execute a US citizen.” ? Would we all be satisfied if we just put in place something like what police officers face when they shoot somebody in the line of duty? [Edited to add] Some sort of formal definition of when lethal force is permitted and a formal review process that checks whether those conditions were met [/edit] I’m thinking something like an automated system whereby any such order to kill brings about an immediate trial before SCOTUS; with threat of impeachment (and even subsequent murder charges) and the burden on the President to show, beyond reasonable doubt, the action was needed to save lives of American citizens in immediate danger.

Nan G

@Kevin:
Kevin, if you listened to Rand Paul, you quickly learned that he had no quarter against any law enforcer killing a criminal if he resists lawful arrest.
It happens all too often.
The term being re-defined by Obama was ”immanent.”
In the body of the document from the WH the term ”immanent” became anyone, any time.
So, according to what Obama’s Executive Branch was putting forward, anyone, any time, just sitting in a cafe, for example, could be hit by an armed drone.
That was the clarification Rand demanded….and got, in writing just a few hours after his filibuster ended.
He was correct, the Obama paper was wrong.
It has now been clarified: no American must fear being killed by armed drones without due process while in no criminal activity.

ilovebeeswarzone

RAND PAUL DID THE CONSTITUTIONALY GESTURE TO WIN HIS POINT
FOR THE AMERICANS WHO WHERE WORRY,,
WHO ELSE DID ANY THING FOR THE AMERICANS LATELY?
NOT MCAIN, NOT GRAHAM,
LET US REMEMBER WHO IS ELECTED AND WORK FOR AMERICANS,
RAND PAUL AND TED CRUZE AND MARCO RUBIO, WHO QUESTIONED THE LEADERSHIP, ISSA FOR SURE,
THERE WAS A FEW OTHER STANDING WITH RAND PAUL,
I also like TREY FOR HIS GUTTS,